Now, this is a real American patriot. Those soldiers who refuse to go to Iraq and become war criminals are the real American heros.

Lieutenant Watada deserves recognition for this act of courage. Perhaps others in the American military will follow his example and declare their refusal to become one of Bush and Cheney's war whores.

Feel free to circulate this story - especially to military-related websites.

Rummy wants to play propaganda games with the American public?

Well, it runs both ways, Rummy. Two can play that. As a matter of fact, many can play that.

You might also find this website to bring law suits of war crimes charges against Rummy also interesting.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_l...suit/index.asp

Lieutenant Watada's War Against the War
by JEREMY BRECHER & BRENDAN SMITH
[posted online on June 12, 2006]
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/brecherweb

In a remarkable protest from inside the ranks of the military, First Lieut. Ehren Watada has become the Army's first commissioned officer to publicly refuse orders to fight in Iraq on grounds that the war is illegal. The 28-year-old announced his decision not to obey orders to deploy to Iraq in a video press conference June 7, saying, "My participation would make me party to war crimes."

An artillery officer stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington, Watada wore a business suit rather than his military uniform when making his statement. "It is my conclusion as an officer of the armed forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law," he said. "Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I am forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal. As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."

A native of Hawaii who enlisted in the Army after graduating from college in 2003, Watada differs from other military personnel who have sought conscientious-objector status to avoid deployment to Iraq.

Watada told Truthout's Sarah Olson that at first he gave the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt as it built the case for war. But when he discovered he was being sent to Iraq, he began reading everything he could, such as James Bamford's Pretext for War. He concluded that the war was based on false pretenses, ranging from the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction to the claim that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11 to the idea that the United States is in Iraq to promote democracy.

His investigation led him to question the very legality of the war. In an interview with Democracy Now!, he explained that as he read articles by experts on international and constitutional law, reports from governmental and nongovernmental agencies, revelations from independent journalists, writings by the Iraqi people and the words of soldiers coming home, "I came to the conclusion that the war and what we're doing over there is illegal."

First, he concluded that the war violates the Constitution and War Powers Act, which, he said, "limits the President in his role as commander in chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit." Watada also concluded that "my moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders."
Second, he claims the war is illegal under international law. He discovered that "the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg principles all bar wars of aggression." The Constitution makes such treaties part of American law as well.
These are not wild legal claims. Watada's conclusions are supported by mountains of evidence and experts, including the judgment of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in 2004 declared that the US invasion was "not in conformity with the UN Charter, and from our point of view...was illegal."

Watada said he came to recognize that the military conduct of the occupation is also illegal: "If you look at the Army Field Manual, 27-10, which governs the laws of land warfare, it states certain responsibilities for the occupying power. As the occupying power, we have failed to follow a lot of those regulations." He told ABC News that the "wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people" is "a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare."

While ongoing media coverage of the protest debates whether Watada's action is one of cowardice or conscience, so far the seriousness of his legal claims have been largely ignored. Watada's position is different from that of conscientious objectors, who oppose all wars. "I'm not just against bearing arms or fighting people. I am against an unjustified war," he said.

Can such a claim be heard in a military court? In 2004, Petty Officer Pablo Paredes refused to board his Iraq-bound ship in San Diego Harbor, claiming to be a conscientious objector. At his court-martial, Paredes testified that he was convinced that the Iraq War was illegal. National Lawyers Guild president-elect Marjorie Cohn presented evidence to support his claim. The military judge, Lieut. Cmdr. Robert Klant, accepted Paredes's war-crimes defense and refused to send him to jail. The government prosecutor's case was so weak that Cohn, in a report published on Truthout.org, noted that Klant declared ironically, "I believe the government has just successfully proved that any seaman recruit has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."

One of Germany's highest courts heard a case last year regarding a German soldier who refused to participate in military activities as part of the US-led coalition in Iraq. The Federal Administrative Court issued a long and detailed decision in his favor, saying, "There were and still are serious legal objections to the war against Iraq...relating to the UN Charter's prohibition of the use of violence and other provisions of international law."

Watada's case comes amid a growing questioning of the Iraq War in all levels of the military. A February Zogby poll found that 72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq think the United States should leave the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the United States should leave immediately. While the "generals' revolt" against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld didn't challenge the legality of the war per se, many retired military leaders have strongly condemned the use of torture and other violations of international and military law.

According to USA Today, at least 8,000 service members have deserted since the Iraq War began. The Guardian reports that there are an estimated 400 Iraq War deserters in Canada, of whom at least twenty have applied for asylum. An Army spokesman says that ten other servicemen besides Watada have refused to go to Iraq.

Resistance in the military played a critical role in ending the French war in Algeria, the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and the American war in Vietnam. Such resistance not only undermines the capacity of a government to conduct wars; it also challenges the moral claims that are used to justify them and inspires others to examine their own responsibilities.

Watada's action comes as the issue of US war crimes in Iraq is inexorably creeping into the public spotlight. Senator John Warner has promised to hold hearings on the alleged Haditha massacre. The UN Committee Against Torture has declared that the United States is engaging in illegal torture at Guant?amo and elsewhere. An investigation by the European Union has found overwhelming evidence of the rendition of prisoners to other countries for torture.

Watada's highly publicized stand will no doubt lead others to ask what they are doing to halt such crimes. Unless the Army assigns him somewhere besides Iraq or permits him to resign his commission, he will now face court-martial for refusing to serve as ordered and possibly years in prison.

According to an ominous statement released by the Army commanders at Fort Lewis in response to Watada's press conference: "For a commissioned officer to publicly declare an apparent intent to violate military law by refusing to obey orders is a serious matter and could subject him to adverse action."

Watada's decision to hold a press conference and post his statements online puts him at serious risk. In theory, if the Army construes his public statements as an attempt to encourage other soldiers to resist, he could be charged with mutiny under Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which considers those who act "with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny." The conservative group Military Families Voice of Victory is already "demanding the Army prosecute Lt. Watada to the fullest extent under the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Watada told Truthout's Olson that when he started to question the war, he he felt, like so many in and out of the military, that "there was nothing to be done, and this administration was just continually violating the law to serve their purpose, and there was nothing to stop them." But he realized that there was something he personally could do: "It is my duty not to follow unlawful orders and not to participate in things I find morally reprehensible."

"The one God-given freedom and right that we really have is freedom of choice," Watada says, echoing the profound message of Mohandas Gandhi. "I just want to tell everybody, especially people who doubt the war, that you do have that one freedom. And that's something that they can never take away. Yes, they will imprison you. They'll throw the book at you. They'll try to make an example out of you, but you do have that choice."

Even facing prison time, Watada is firm. "When you are looking your children in the eye in the future, or when you are at the end of your life, you want to look back on your life and know that at a very important moment, when I had the opportunity to make the right decisions, I did so, even knowing there were negative consequences."
Watada's recognition of his duty provides a challenge not only to those in the military but to all Americans: "We all have a duty as American citizens for civil disobedience, and to do anything we can within the law to stop an illegal war."

Micheal News comes to mind when it involves sueing the US. 11 years since his ordeal and no resolution.

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights

If he's never been to Iraq, how does he know "that the wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people" is happening?

His duty as an officer is to follow lawful orders, not set national policy. If he was actually ordered to violate laws of armed conflict, than I'd say he's right on for standing up. But deploying to a combat zone, whether he agrees or disagrees politically, is his duty. If he has such strong convictions about the treatment of the Iraqi people, he should be going there to make sure the mission is carried out humanely and in compliance with the laws of armed conflict.

__________________
Hook 'em
Bear


Texas Longhorns
2005 College World Series Champs
2005 NCAA Football Champs

You know what they: One man's patriot is another man's traitor.

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights

Well spoken Bear......

You had the right not to enlist, that was his right.

Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Mutiny? This is not going to fare very well for him.

Kafkorea writes "Now, this is a real American patriot. Those soldiers who refuse to go to Iraq and become war criminals are the real American heros."

You're joking right? This is neither patriotic or heroic as a member of the US Military.

__________________
Charles Troglen
(Team Draculino)

I already posted about this coward. That is what his is a big coward. He is a 1LT so he joined the Army AFTER the Iraq war started. Anyone who joined the Army AFTER the Iraq war started knew that there was a chance of going to Iraq. He is either a coward or joined the Army hoping to make a protest. Either way he is a pathetic excuse for an officer and should be sent to jail for a few years.

Mike

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

I'm sure that this will have the same results as Micheal News: Court-Martial, Leavenworth (I believe), appeal, another apeal and even a website. This guy is only a 1Lt trying to protest after the fact?

I agree with Mike, if he was already in it would be one thing. Micheal News was stationed in Germany 11 years ageo and his unit received orders for either Bosnia or Kosovo. They were required to wear the baby blue UN grab, he refused to wear and participate. His father is an attorney and has been his legal counsel since the incident. While it might be a unique thing, it's not really newsworthy. It's not like the guy's a 0-5 protesting. C-Span had some ralley (biwekly it seems) about former military personnel using the Conscientious Objector route. One officer pulled it off, he started 30 days before the war. I hope he has deep pockets and good legal counsel, Leavenworth could be his next tour of duty.

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights

Watada is not a coward nor a hypocrit. The fact that he joined the military in 2003 is not significant. Read the following excerpt from the article. It explains clearly that Watada's realizations about the war came about after he volunteered for service. It is a result of his personal investigation of the war itself. He realized that the war was an illegal war from its very onset.

"Watada told Truthout's Sarah Olson that at first he gave the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt as it built the case for war. But when he discovered he was being sent to Iraq, he began reading everything he could, such as James Bamford's Pretext for War. He concluded that the war was based on false pretenses, ranging from the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction to the claim that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11 to the idea that the United States is in Iraq to promote democracy.

His investigation led him to question the very legality of the war. In an interview with Democracy Now!, he explained that as he read articles by experts on international and constitutional law, reports from governmental and nongovernmental agencies, revelations from independent journalists, writings by the Iraqi people and the words of soldiers coming home, "I came to the conclusion that the war and what we're doing over there is illegal."

First, he concluded that the war violates the Constitution and War Powers Act, which, he said, "limits the President in his role as commander in chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit." Watada also concluded that "my moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders."

Second, he claims the war is illegal under international law. He discovered that "the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg principles all bar wars of aggression." The Constitution makes such treaties part of American law as well.

These are not wild legal claims. Watada's conclusions are supported by mountains of evidence and experts, including the judgment of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in 2004 declared that the US invasion was "not in conformity with the UN Charter, and from our point of view...was illegal."

So, Watada's refusal to serve in Iraq is based on his allegience to the American Constitution which has been violated by Bush's illegal war. There is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION for the invasion and subsequent occupation of a sovereign country.

Watada is doing his duty as a patriotic American by saying NO! to the war criminals who originally prosecuted this illegal, politician's war for profit and power. It was a naked act of aggression which cannot be justified in international law nor through the American Constitution since Bush clearly LIED to Congress about the justification for the war.

I mean, if Congress bit the bait at the time, why do you think Watada should've known better?

IMO, he's an American hero who, once realizing the illegality of the war, refused to participate in it. It's the same as a German soldier during WWII who refused to fight for the Nazis.

Perhaps that person wasn't recognized as a hero at the time, but he would be remembered by history as one.

The problem here is that interpretation of international law and US national security strategy absolutely cannot be left up to each individual. Well, at least not if you expect that military to function effectively.

When you enlist or accept commission, you agree to follow lawful orders. That doesn't mean you have the right to put national policy through your own legal review before deciding on whether an order is lawful. This is not an argument about whether or not the war was right, this is an argument about maintaining the good order and discipline required in the military.

German soldiers in WWII were not held responsible for the atrocities committed by their government, unless they personally committed them. And by the way, comparing the US conduct in Iraq to the horrors of Nazi Germany in WWII is both intellectually dishonest and irresponsible.

Lastly, not a single bit of proof has come out showing that Bush lied prior to the war. Just because something turns out to be false or overestimated, that doesn't mean it was a lie.

__________________
Hook 'em
Bear


Texas Longhorns
2005 College World Series Champs
2005 NCAA Football Champs

If the point is based on international law, then we're justified by protecting the citizens of Iraq due to massive human rights violations. 14 years of failed UN sanctions lead to an immediate need of invading Iraq to protect its citizens from further human rights violations. Sadam was so corupt that he, in a sense, ignorred all UN chaters and resolutions and nullified his own authority as leader. Going to war was the only alternative to save the Iraqis form Sadam-and Chemical Ali. Would something like this satisfy the criteria for war and send this guy on a one way ticket to a BCD and itself benefits?

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights